Groups > linux.debian.user > #265426 > unrolled thread

1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

Started by	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
First post	2024-01-02 23:50 +0100
Last post	2024-01-03 14:30 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 25 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

  1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-02 23:50 +0100
    Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-01-03 00:10 +0100
      Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-03 00:40 +0100
        Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-01-03 02:00 +0100
      Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2024-01-03 08:50 +0100
    Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-01-03 00:10 +0100
      Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-03 00:50 +0100
        Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-03 01:40 +0100
          Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-03 04:20 +0100
            Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2024-01-03 12:10 +0100
              Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-03 21:30 +0100
                Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-04 00:30 +0100
                  Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-01-04 12:00 +0100
                    Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-04 15:10 +0100
                  Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-05 22:10 +0100
                    Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-06 00:30 +0100
                      Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-01-06 02:30 +0100
                        Secure erase [was: Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How  worried should I be?] Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-01-06 03:50 +0100
                        Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-01-06 06:20 +0100
                          Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-01-06 09:40 +0100
                            Re: reinstallation and restore after catastrophic mistake or  failure; was: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I  be? Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2024-01-06 13:40 +0100
                              Re: reinstallation and restore after catastrophic mistake or failure;  was: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-01-07 00:40 +0100
                Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-01-04 16:20 +0100
                Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2024-01-04 17:50 +0100
            Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-03 14:30 +0100

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#265426 — 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-02 23:50 +0100
Subject	1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HRVK9-mRQ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>

I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new computer.
smartd just started returning pending sector errors.

A recent extended (long) test run since the first reported pending
sector returned no errors.

How worried should I be?


Device Model:     NS256GSSD330
Serial Number:    W3ZK047027T
Firmware Version: V0823A0
User Capacity:    256,060,514,304 bytes [256 GB]
Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
Rotation Rate:    Solid State Device
Form Factor:      mSATA
TRIM Command:     Available
Device is:        Not in smartctl database 7.3/5533
ATA Version is:   ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3
SATA Version is:  SATA 3.2, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
Local Time is:    Tue Jan  2 15:27:45 2024 MST
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED

…

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%       764         -
# 2  Short offline       Completed without error       00%       116         -


root@tiassa:~# journalctl -u smartmontools.service | grep unreadable
Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 13:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 14:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
root@tiassa:~# 


-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#265427

From	Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org>
Date	2024-01-03 00:10 +0100
Message-ID	<HRW3v-ngX-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265426

Charles Curley wrote: 
> I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new computer.

You might, but that's not what the details you show us are
saying.

> smartd just started returning pending sector errors.
> 
> A recent extended (long) test run since the first reported pending
> sector returned no errors.
> 
> How worried should I be?
> 
> 
> Device Model:     NS256GSSD330
> Serial Number:    W3ZK047027T
> Firmware Version: V0823A0
> User Capacity:    256,060,514,304 bytes [256 GB]
> Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
> Rotation Rate:    Solid State Device
> Form Factor:      mSATA

That says this is a SATA device, not an NVMe device.

Looking up the device model shows me this:
https://smarthdd.com/database/Netac-SSD-256GB/S0626A0/

which confirms: SATA in an M.2 form factor, not NVMe.

> ATA Version is:   ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3
> SATA Version is:  SATA 3.2, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
> Local Time is:    Tue Jan  2 15:27:45 2024 MST
> SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
> SMART support is: Enabled
> 
> === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
> SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
> 
> …
> 
> SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
> Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
> # 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%       764         -
> # 2  Short offline       Completed without error       00%       116         -
> 
> 
> root@tiassa:~# journalctl -u smartmontools.service | grep unreadable
> Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> Jan 02 13:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> Jan 02 14:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors

These are logged at suspiciously even times, like something is
looking at the disk every 30 minutes exactly.

Note that "currently unreadable" sometimes means "the disk is
too busy to get back to us" and sometimes means "there's damage
on the disk".  The disk's onboard controller should map around
damage automatically.

Do you have any other symptoms? Anything interesting in the
SMART variables?

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265429 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-03 00:40 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HRWwx-npV-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265427

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:47:18 -0500
Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:

> Charles Curley wrote: 
> > I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new
> > computer.  
> 
> You might, but that's not what the details you show us are
> saying.
> 
>  [...]  
> 
> That says this is a SATA device, not an NVMe device.
> 
> Looking up the device model shows me this:
> https://smarthdd.com/database/Netac-SSD-256GB/S0626A0/
> 
> which confirms: SATA in an M.2 form factor, not NVMe.

Thank you for that correction.

> 
>  [...]  
> 
> These are logged at suspiciously even times, like something is
> looking at the disk every 30 minutes exactly.

If I correctly read the journal entries I appended to my previous email,
that would be smartd.



> 
> Note that "currently unreadable" sometimes means "the disk is
> too busy to get back to us" and sometimes means "there's damage
> on the disk".  The disk's onboard controller should map around
> damage automatically.
> 
> Do you have any other symptoms? Anything interesting in the
> SMART variables?

Nothing that jumps out at me.

Report appended as a text file.


-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265432

From	Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org>
Date	2024-01-03 02:00 +0100
Message-ID	<HRXLX-o3M-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265429

Charles Curley wrote: 
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:47:18 -0500
> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> 
> root@tiassa:~# smartctl -a /dev/sda 
> smartctl 7.3 2022-02-28 r5338 [x86_64-linux-6.1.0-17-amd64] (local build)

> Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>   1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       0
>   5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       1
>   9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       764
>  12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       25
> 178 Used_Rsvd_Blk_Cnt_Chip  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       1
> 194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       45
> 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       0
> 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       0
> 197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       1
> 198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       0
> 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       0
> 232 Available_Reservd_Space 0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       96
> 241 Total_LBAs_Written      0x0030   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       13943
> 242 Total_LBAs_Read         0x0030   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       5610

These are the values that can indicate health problems with the
disk.

None of them look bad except the temperature - which is only bad
because of the specs on the disk - and
> 197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       1

which confirms that something is stuck, but it's just one
sector.

I would not worry about this unless some new symptom emerges.

Make backups, but only because you should pretty much always
have backups.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265434 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk>
Date	2024-01-03 08:50 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HS4aJ-s1A-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265427

On Tue, 2024-01-02 at 17:47 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > root@tiassa:~# journalctl -u smartmontools.service | grep unreadable
> > Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> > Jan 02 13:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> > Jan 02 14:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> > Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> > Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> 
> These are logged at suspiciously even times, like something is
> looking at the disk every 30 minutes exactly.

Perhaps 'smartd' the "SMART Disk Monitoring Daemon" ;-)

-- 
Tixy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265428

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2024-01-03 00:10 +0100
Message-ID	<HRW3v-ngX-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265426

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jan 02, 2024, Charles Curley wrote:
> I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new computer.
> smartd just started returning pending sector errors.

Means you've got "N" bad sector(s) on the drive.  It happens, even on
new drives.

> 
> A recent extended (long) test run since the first reported pending
> sector returned no errors.
> 
> How worried should I be?

I wouldn't be "very" worried; but I'd keep an eye on it (especially with
regards to any warranties you may have on the machine)

> Device Model:     NS256GSSD330
> Serial Number:    W3ZK047027T
> Firmware Version: V0823A0
> User Capacity:    256,060,514,304 bytes [256 GB]
> Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
> Rotation Rate:    Solid State Device
> Form Factor:      mSATA
> TRIM Command:     Available
> Device is:        Not in smartctl database 7.3/5533
> ATA Version is:   ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3
> SATA Version is:  SATA 3.2, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
> Local Time is:    Tue Jan  2 15:27:45 2024 MST
> SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
> SMART support is: Enabled
> 
> === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
> SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
> 
> …
> 
> SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
> Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
> # 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%       764         -
> # 2  Short offline       Completed without error       00%       116         -


You kinda removed the important bits out of this report with regards to
the drive health.  That being said, this drive is not an NVMe -- did you
check the right one?


-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1  E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265430 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-03 00:50 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HRWGd-ntk-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265428

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:01:32 -0500
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

> On Jan 02, 2024, Charles Curley wrote:
> > I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new
> > computer. smartd just started returning pending sector errors.  
> 
> Means you've got "N" bad sector(s) on the drive.  It happens, even on
> new drives.

Good to know.

> 
> > 
> > A recent extended (long) test run since the first reported pending
> > sector returned no errors.
> > 
> > How worried should I be?  
> 
> I wouldn't be "very" worried; but I'd keep an eye on it (especially
> with regards to any warranties you may have on the machine)

OK, will do. If I understand that entry in the SMART report, the
offending sector should eventually be re-mapped or else marked as
unrecoverable. If the latter, I'll get really concerned.


> 
> > Device Model:     NS256GSSD330
> > Serial Number:    W3ZK047027T

> 
> You kinda removed the important bits out of this report with regards
> to the drive health.

Sorry. See my recent reply to Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org>.

> That being said, this drive is not an NVMe --
> did you check the right one?

It's the only one on the computer. Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org>
corrected that. https://smarthdd.com/database/Netac-SSD-256GB/S0626A0/


-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265431

From	Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
Date	2024-01-03 01:40 +0100
Message-ID	<HRXsB-nXk-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265430

Hello,

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> If I understand that entry in the SMART report, the offending
> sector should eventually be re-mapped or else marked as
> unrecoverable. If the latter, I'll get really concerned.

If a SMART long self-test came back clean then it already has been
re-mapped as a long self-test reads every user-accessible sector.

If you really want to reassure yourself, look back in your logs for
the actual sector number and then read it with hdparm. Either it
prints the raw data or it gives an error.

# hdparm --read-sector [sector number] /dev/sda

(generally safe as it's only a read)

It is annoying when a remapped bad sector doesn't seem to increment
the "remapped" count and decrement the "pending" count, but I've had
it happen. I wouldn't particularly worry about it unless the number
keeps going up OR the actual sector is still unreadable (though the
self-test should have spotted that).

You can reconfigure smartd so that it only warns you about error values
that increase, not just the presence of the non-zero value every 30
minutes. That's discussed in the comments of /etc/smartd.conf and
its man page.

> It's the only one on the computer.

Like to live dangerously, huh…

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265433 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-03 04:20 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HRZXr-pB1-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265431

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 00:29:42 +0000
Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
>  [...]  
> 
> If a SMART long self-test came back clean then it already has been
> re-mapped as a long self-test reads every user-accessible sector.

I'm not so sure about that. See the journalctl output at the bottom of
this email.


> 
> If you really want to reassure yourself, look back in your logs for
> the actual sector number and then read it with hdparm. Either it
> prints the raw data or it gives an error.
> 
> # hdparm --read-sector [sector number] /dev/sda
> 
> (generally safe as it's only a read)

I'll try that later. I don't want to take the time now to isolate the
relevant log entries.

> 
> It is annoying when a remapped bad sector doesn't seem to increment
> the "remapped" count and decrement the "pending" count, but I've had
> it happen. I wouldn't particularly worry about it unless the number
> keeps going up OR the actual sector is still unreadable (though the
> self-test should have spotted that).
> 
> You can reconfigure smartd so that it only warns you about error
> values that increase, not just the presence of the non-zero value
> every 30 minutes. That's discussed in the comments of
> /etc/smartd.conf and its man page.

Good thoughts, thank you.

> 
> > It's the only one on the computer.  
> 
> Like to live dangerously, huh…

No. That's what fast networks, good and multiple backup programs, a
good RAID array on another computer, and multiple off-site backups are
for.

> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 

root@tiassa:~# journalctl -b -u smartmontools.service 
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa systemd[1]: Starting smartmontools.service - Self Monitoring and Reporting Technology (SMART) Daemon...
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: smartd 7.3 2022-02-28 r5338 [x86_64-linux-6.1.0-17-amd64] (local build)
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Copyright (C) 2002-22, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Opened configuration file /etc/smartd.conf
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Drive: DEVICESCAN, implied '-a' Directive on line 21 of file /etc/smartd.conf
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Configuration file /etc/smartd.conf was parsed, found DEVICESCAN, scanning devices
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda, type changed from 'scsi' to 'sat'
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], opened
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], NS256GSSD330, S/N:W3ZK047027T, FW:V0823A0, 256 GB
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], not found in smartd database 7.3/5533.
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], is SMART capable. Adding to "monitor" list.
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], state read from /var/lib/smartmontools/smartd.NS256GSSD330-W3ZK047027T.ata.state
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Monitoring 1 ATA/SATA, 0 SCSI/SAS and 0 NVMe devices
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], state written to /var/lib/smartmontools/smartd.NS256GSSD330-W3ZK047027T.ata.state
Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa systemd[1]: Started smartmontools.service - Self Monitoring and Reporting Technology (SMART) Daemon.
Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Sending warning via /usr/share/smartmontools/smartd-runner to root ...
Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Warning via /usr/share/smartmontools/smartd-runner to root: successful
Jan 02 13:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 14:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], self-test in progress, 20% remaining
Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], previous self-test completed without error
Jan 02 15:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 16:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 16:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 17:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 17:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 18:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 18:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 19:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 19:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Jan 02 20:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
root@tiassa:~# 

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265439

From	Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net>
Date	2024-01-03 12:10 +0100
Message-ID	<HS7ih-u9n-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265433

On 2 Jan 2024 20:17 -0700, from charlescurley@charlescurley.com (Charles Curley):
> Jan 02 20:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors

This is not the problem. This is smartd reporting something about the
drive's health which you might be interested in. (Also, about what
someone else wrote, it's not really surprising if smartd checks the
drive every 30 minutes. It would have been more curious if there were
kernel I/O errors logged exactly every 30 minutes, but you haven't
shown anything from those logs in this thread AFAICT.)

What I find curious is the combination of Reallocated_Sector_Ct == 1
and Reallocated_Event_Count == 0. There's also the
Current_Pending_Sector == 1 but Offline_Uncorrectable == 0 even after
two SMART health tests, one of which being an extended offline test.

If a sector has been reallocated, that should have happened at some
point, so if Reallocated_Sector_Ct > 0 then Reallocated_Event_Count
_should_ also be greater than 0 (and hopefully not greater than
Reallocated_Sector_Ct), which it isn't reported as in your case.

Likewise, after an extended offline SMART test, each sector should
have a known status of either readable or not readable. If the
firmware detects a sector as being marginal, it _should_ rewrite it
and check again; if it's still marginal, it _should_ reallocate that
sector, which _should_ increment Reallocated_Event_Count. The "pending
sectors" SMART attribute is supposed to count sectors which the drive
has failed to read, so they cannot be reallocated, and which will be
reallocated on the next write (when the drive knows what data to put
in the reallocated-to sector). Since both tests finished without
finding any errors, there _should_ have been no unreadable sectors.

I'm inclined to believe that your drive is fibbing SMART data.

As a background process, try running something like

# ionice find / -xdev -type f -exec cat {} + >/dev/null

and if that doesn't cause any I/O errors to be output or logged, then
the drive is _likely_ fine. (You may need to adjust for other file
systems also on that drive, such as /boot.)

--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265451 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-03 21:30 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HSg2d-zO6-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265439

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:05:10 +0000
Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> wrote:

> Since both tests finished without
> finding any errors, there _should_ have been no unreadable sectors.

Agree.

> 
> I'm inclined to believe that your drive is fibbing SMART data.

Sigh. I am inclined to agree. Obviously they didn't hire me to write
the firmware on the drive.

> 
> As a background process, try running something like
> 
> # ionice find / -xdev -type f -exec cat {} + >/dev/null

That would only reach files on the partition where it is run. Since
there is another operating system on this drive, and there are parts of
the drive normally inaccessible to any operating system, I decided
instead to boot to a USB stick and run badblocks. The read-only test
took 12 minutes and reported no errors.

I now have a writing test (-w) running. It has reported no failures on
its first pass.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265468 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-04 00:30 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HSiQp-BxU-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265451

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:25:26 -0700
Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:

> I now have a writing test (-w) running. It has reported no failures on
> its first pass.

OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of 0x00s.
I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no failures.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265497

From	<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date	2024-01-04 12:00 +0100
Message-ID	<HStC9-HX1-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265468

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 04:27:54PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:25:26 -0700
> Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:
> 
> > I now have a writing test (-w) running. It has reported no failures on
> > its first pass.
> 
> OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of 0x00s.
> I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no failures.

Ouch, I hope you had a backup.

> -- 
> Does anybody read signatures any more?

I *never* do.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265504 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-04 15:10 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HSwA1-Kr6-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265497

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:58:54 +0100
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> > 
> > OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of
> > 0x00s. I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no
> > failures.  
> 
> Ouch, I hope you had a backup.

All the essential stuff, yes.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265555

From	Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
Date	2024-01-05 22:10 +0100
Message-ID	<HSZC1-13Mo-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265468

Hello,

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 04:27:54PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of 0x00s.
> I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no failures.

So has this coaxed the drive into reducing its pending sector count
to zero or does that still say 1?

I have had drives in the past that never decremented it even though
they had clearly done a remap, and others that took a long time
(weeks) to get around to doing so.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265560 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-06 00:30 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HT1Nv-155q-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265555

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 21:01:28 +0000
Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:

> So has this coaxed the drive into reducing its pending sector count
> to zero or does that still say 1?

Last I looked, it was still at 1. When I finish my reinstallation, I
will look again.

> 
> I have had drives in the past that never decremented it even though
> they had clearly done a remap, and others that took a long time
> (weeks) to get around to doing so.

As the Zen master said, we will see.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265563

From	David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
Date	2024-01-06 02:30 +0100
Message-ID	<HT3FE-16fl-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265560

On 1/5/24 15:20, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 21:01:28 +0000 Andy Smith wrote:
>> So has this coaxed the drive into reducing its pending sector count
>> to zero or does that still say 1?
> 
> Last I looked, it was still at 1. When I finish my reinstallation, I
> will look again.

I like to do a secure erase before re-deploying an SSD.  The UEFI ROM 
firmware in my newer Dell computers provides an option to make secure 
erase easy.  Other choices include an SSD manufacturer toolkit or 
install/ live/ rescue media with the right tools.  It is also useful to 
have a hot-swap drive rack and matching port, as powering down, 
installing the target drive, powering up, and booting an OS (on 
different media) can result in locked drive security.

I save 'smartctl -x ...' output to text files and check them into a 
version control system.  This facilitates looking for changes and trends 
over time.

I would be curious to know if a secure erase forces the pending sector 
issue and, if so, what the result is.

David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265566 — Secure erase [was: Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?]

From	Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>
Date	2024-01-06 03:50 +0100
Subject	Secure erase [was: Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?]
Message-ID	<HT4V3-16U0-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265563

On 06/01/2024 08:25, David Christensen wrote:
> I like to do a secure erase before re-deploying an SSD.  The UEFI ROM 
> firmware in my newer Dell computers provides an option to make secure 
> erase easy.  Other choices include an SSD manufacturer toolkit or 
> install/ live/ rescue media with the right tools.

I have seen a couple of warnings concerning hdparm, but I am unsure 
concerning current state of affairs. Maybe something has changed.

https://archive.kernel.org/oldwiki/ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ATA_Secure_Erase.html> 

> - Do not attempt to do this through a USB interface!
> - Do not set the password to an empty string or NULL.
> 
> OBSOLETE CONTENT
> 
> This wiki has been archived and the content is no longer updated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265568 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

From	Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com>
Date	2024-01-06 06:20 +0100
Subject	Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Message-ID	<HT7gd-18SR-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265563

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 17:25:48 -0800
David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:

> I would be curious to know if a secure erase forces the pending
> sector issue and, if so, what the result is.

An interesting thought. Alas, I am far enough along on re-installing
that I do not want to try it. Sorry.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265573

From	David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
Date	2024-01-06 09:40 +0100
Message-ID	<HTanL-1aVH-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#265568

On 1/5/24 21:10, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 17:25:48 -0800
> David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would be curious to know if a secure erase forces the pending
>> sector issue and, if so, what the result is.
> 
> An interesting thought. Alas, I am far enough along on re-installing
> that I do not want to try it. Sorry.

I suggest taking an image (backup) with dd(1), Clonezilla, etc., when 
you're done.  This will allow you to restore the image later -- to 
roll-back a change you do not like, to recovery from a disaster, to 
clone the image to another device, to facilitate experiments, (such as 
doing a secure erase to see if it resolves the SSD pending sector 
issue), etc..

If you also keep your system configuration files in a version control 
system, restoring an image is faster than wipe/ fresh install/ 
configure/ restore data.

David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

Contents

#265426 — 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265427

#265429 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265432

#265434 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265428

#265430 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265431

#265433 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265439

#265451 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265468 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265497

#265504 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265555

#265560 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265563

#265566 — Secure erase [was: Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?]

#265568 — Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?

#265573